I’ve been reading Lew Rockwell’s political and economic commentaries for
the last few years, usually agreeing with the former, less often with the
latter. He feels the same way about my memos on the margin, posting those on
his website that he likes. His column April 25 on what history teaches us to
expect in Iraq now that victory is in hand was the best Rockwell I’d ever
read. I immediately e-mailed my congratulations and labeled “Rule by Force
Alone” a “classic.” When you are finished, ask yourself why I compare
Saddam Hussein’s approach to politics to former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley,
not to Hitler or Stalin.

* * * * *

Rule By Force Alone
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

It is now clear that the US government faces immense difficulties
in Iraq. As bizarre as it seems, it would appear that the Bush administration
knew nothing about the political demographics in this country before it
decided to smash its state. Apparently, the administration failed to consider
the implications of the fact that this country is 2/3 Shiite, and that its
status as a liberal/secular regime, by regional standards, was highly tenuous.

Now, I'm the last one to shed a tear for the crushing of any state, but even a
libertarian extremist like me understands that there are prudential
considerations involved in the decision to overthrow a government. It is
wildly irresponsible not to think through what will replace the state. In
Iraq, absent a mass ideological conversion to Rothbardianism, it seems there
are two emerging choices: Islamic dictatorship (like the one the US overthrew
last season in Afghanistan) or some form of US military dictatorship (but
that’s not really viable for reasons I'll explain below).

This is a country where democracy would be a one-time fling, and could easily
result in an Islamic theocracy. Saddam understood this too, and it appears
obvious in retrospect that his dictatorship sought to keep such a theocracy at
bay. As with all states everywhere, of course, its main aim was to retain and
expand power and pelf, which means, as always and everywhere, not law and
order generally (much less the enforcement of rights), but keeping the
competition pacified, mollified, or suppressed. The more a state is threatened
by competition, the more we can expect it to exercise despotic power.

But despotic power is never enough to control a country. Saddam, like even the
most ruthless dictator, existed within a complicated political balance. As a
minority Sunni and a Bedouin ruling a primarily Arab and Shiite country, he
had to form coalitions with other minorities like the Christians even as he
faced unrelenting pressure to make life livable for the Shiite majority that
stood ready to overthrow the regime. This requires the use of force,
certainly, but also, and more subtly, payoffs, exchanges, logrolling, illusion
strategies, and, ideally, a foreign threat to deflect attention (the US
obliged him on this last point).

The second front of possible political competition, aside from organized
opposition, is the general population itself, which is always a majority
relative to the minority government. Revolution always threatens. This is why
all governments everywhere seek consent in order to retain power. Force alone
is not enough. People must be satisfied with their lot to some extent, or at
least they must fear that life without the regime might be worst than the
present plight. Here again, foreign enemies are highly useful.

When the US overthrew Saddam, they didn't just get rid of the sword of his
state but also the entire panoply of mechanisms that kept revolution from
happening and the theocrats from taking charge. Faced with the prospect of
Islamic rule, the US has only one arrow in its quiver: force. As a senior
administration official told the New York Times, "it's clear we
are going to have to step in a little more forcefully."

Thus did the US issue an astounding proclamation in the name of freedom.
Quoting the Times:

“Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, issued a
proclamation putting Iraq's politicians on notice, saying, ‘The coalition
alone retains absolute authority within Iraq.’ He warned that anyone
challenging the American-led authority would be subject to arrest.”

Ah, the sweet sound of liberation!

And how long will martial law by a foreign occupation military have to last?
General Jay Garner has two conditions: "long enough to start a democratic
government" and "long enough to get their economy going." Thus
do we see the absurdities into which US foreign policy has sunk: Democracy via
military dictatorship, and economic growth at the point of a gun. This is
essentially no different from the old Soviet claim that it too was a democracy
that fostered economic growth, that it too ruled in order to liberate.

In what respect is the US government's military dictatorship different from
every other in the history of the world? The old Soviet claims were
essentially frauds, and everyone knew it. Those issuing these statements from
the US might actually believe what they are saying. Because they have immense
firepower and a string of recent military successes, US military bureaucrats
might actually believe that coercion alone is enough to rule a country.

Because it might not be self-evident to everyone why this cannot be so, let me
spell it out. Consider the case of the typical prison, a place where everyone
is a slave and where human choice is limited to the most extreme extent
possible. Here, everyone sleeps behind bars. Everyone eats at appointed times
and places and only what they are permitted to eat. Work, leisure, and
associations are managed from the top down. It is the ultimate controlled
society.

And yet anyone who knows about prison life can tell you that coercion and
force are not the dominating means of order, nor are the wardens the main
authority for day-to-day operations. Every prison includes a vast hierarchy
that is informally organized, a structure of government in which wardens and
prisoners trade decision-making power. There are leaders and followers, and
wheels within wheels of these authority arrangements.

What's true for the structure of government in prison is also true for the
prison economy, which is active and complicated, where the smallest items and
services serve as money, and informal structures of saving, credit,
investment, and consumption take root in a funhouse mirror reflection of
commercial society in the outside world.

If force alone were to replace informal networks of authority and exchange,
the result would be rioting and chaos, followed by destruction and death.
Because humans are by their nature not amoebas but choosing, creative,
rational, and complicated, the only way to rule by force alone is via
extermination.

If this is true in prison, it is all the more true in society. Power is not a
substitute for consent. Those wielding the power in every society are in the
minority while those obeying are in the majority. That the majority does not
overthrow the minority is the great puzzle of political philosophy, addressed
most famously by Étienne de la Boétie. Rothbard explains as follows:

“[His] fundamental insight was that every tyranny must necessarily be
grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people
themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. If this
were not the case, no tyranny, indeed no governmental rule, could long endure.
Hence, a government does not have to be popularly elected to enjoy general
public support; for general public support is in the very nature of all
governments that endure, including the most oppressive of tyrannies. The
tyrant is but one person, and could scarcely command the obedience of another
person, much less of an entire country, if most of the subjects did not grant
their obedience by their own consent.”

US foreign-policy planners show no evidence that they understand this. Before
the war, they believed in the super-simple model that Saddam ruled by force
alone. It is as simple as replacing his guns with our guns! Believing this,
they have assumed that force alone would be enough to rule in his absence. But
in a whole host of areas, from control of even the central district of
Baghdad, they have come to find out that they cannot. The prisoners are
rioting and threaten a total takeover. This is possible even when the wardens
are much more heavily armed.

Americans recently have found themselves mesmerized by the ability of military
force to accomplish amazing things. Certainly the military is impressed with
itself. But it is now discovering that the mystery of political obedience is a
bit more complicated. Governments only know force, but force alone can never
be the basis for the viability of government. Revolution always threatens
every regime, and some more than others.

Whether the Iraqis are living under Saddam or foreign military occupation, the
words of La Boétie ring true: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at
once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him
over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him,
like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own
weight and break in pieces."

April 25, 2003

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in
Auburn, Alabama, and editor of http://www.LewRockwell.com.